Farm Bill, Facing Veto, Goes to Bush

RightinNYC · 05-15-08, 11:46 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/wa...l?ref=business

Quote:

Mr. Bush’s objections include the failure of the bill to do enough to limit subsidies, which he has said are difficult to justify in such flush times for producers.

The administration had sought an income cap of $200,000 above which farmers could not qualify for farmer-subsidy payments. The bill sent by Congress limits farm income to $750,000 and non-farm income to $500,000.

The $750,000 limit would apply just to so-called direct payments that are disbursed based on acreage, regardless of market conditions or whether the land is actively farmed. The $500,000 limit applies to all programs.

Why is Bush the one trying to limit government handouts to the rich? Who actually thinks this is a good idea?

Here's some other brilliant tidbits from the bill:

Quote:

More than half the subsidies paid out from 2003 to 2005 went to 19 of the 435 congressional districts, according to the non-partisan Environmental Working Group, an opponent of the bill.

The 673-page bill is replete with narrowly tailored provisions sought by lobbying groups, records show. Those measures include $93 million in tax breaks for horse breeders, $170 million in grants for the salmon industry and what Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., called a "backroom" deal that he said mainly benefits one Montana timber company.

Great.

Pork, not policy - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

There also are some genuinely awful additions, such as a $3.8-billion disaster-assistance program that could prompt landowners to plow up endangered grasslands on the Great Plains, and a program to prop up sugar growers that will ensure Americans continue to pay double the world price for the sweetener.

Good, because we definitely don't consume enough HFCS!

Also, does anyone see a problem with the idea of spending $27 billion on promoting conservation and then $4 billion on incentivizing destruction of said conservation?

What a load of ****.

Ikari · 05-16-08, 10:31 AM

I agree with Bush on this one, and I personally think that this bill should be vetoed. Of course, I'd go a step further and end all subsidies, but that's just my opinion.